Focus and Scope

Harlot ceased publication in 2016.

Harlot (2008-2016) was dedicated to prompting conversations about rhetoric in everyday life among diverse publics. Harlot was not your average publication—neither purely academic, nor completely popular. It was a hybrid, an attempt to bridge those conventional divides in order to prompt conversation across/between/among/through/around a variety of critical readers, creators, and thinkers.

Peer Review Process

All submissions were reviewed by the Editors for suitability and quality before a work was forwarded for review. Upon acceptance for review, submissions underwent a thorough assessment by the Harlot Consortium, our review board made up of academic and non-academic reviewers, the same audiences you can expect as readers and viewers of your texts. Each submission was paired with at least one academic and one non-academic reviewer.

Harlot's mission was all about inclusivity and accessibility for a wide range of audiences, and this review process was designed with that goal in mind. We asked readers from within and outside academic contexts to consider the following criteria:

  1. Relevance: Is the topic and argument of this piece relevant to a variety of audiences? Does the article forefront the significance of the topic in everyday life?
  2. Focus: Does this piece reveal something about persuasion in a clear and compelling way? Is the argument sound and well supported?
  3. Style/Appeal: Does this piece seem inviting to a variety of audiences (consider form, writing style, vocabulary, use of citations/scholarship, length). Does the author seem to privilege or exclude certain audiences?
  4. Ethics: Is the work respectful and inclusive of diverse individuals and communities? Does it work to foster productive conversation?